Sounder SIGN UP FOR FREE
Talking Images
Talking Images

Episode 19 · 1 year ago

WTH Happened to Godard in the 70s

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

In 1967, Jean-Luc Godard made a film called Weekend, famous for its beautiful tracking shot of a traffic jam and the collision that caused it.

To many fans of Godard's work up to this point it is as if he was one of the casualties, or more potent: that this car crash is an apt metaphor for the next 12 years of his career.

But why?

Why do even ardent Godard fans, including those who followed and loved his work in the 80s, 90s, and throughout the 21st century hate or dismiss his 70s work?

Why did he lose mainstream appeal?

Why did he go from participating in Cannes to protesting Cannes and getting the festival shut down?

What happened?

In this episode we will try to answer this very question, and look at how the one of the worlds most esteemed "auteurs" went on to become a "collaborator".

We will look at the two partnerships that defined his career in the 70s, namely the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collective the Dziga Vertov Group, and his long time partner and collaborator Anne-Marie Mieville

We will also discuss 3 of the films he made in this period in great detail:

  • Wind From the East
  • Tout va Bien
  • Numero Deux

Are they worth seeing? Listen in, and find out.

You are listening to talking images, the official podcast of ICM forumcom welcome back everyone, and yes, this is real. We are going to talk about d period in good art career many of his ardent fans actively ignore. It's a little bit like a black box of secret films this next to no one has seen. No, seriously, when you hear people talk about Goddard, it's like he died in one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven, or at the very least living comatos until the S. and this is why this is such an exciting part of his life and career to finally be able to talk about in detail and break down a little bit. Now. John Ly Puddard is, at least many the very embodiment of the cinematic author and and that's fitting. He was instrumental, both as a critique and theorist with careers the cinema and as a director, in pushing the author theory with changed how so many people view cinema, placing the director as a soul, or at least most significant artist within the creation of a film and the film as his or her vision. It's there for a little bit curious. It's not display ironic that essentially his entire body of work in the S is defined by collaboration, will go into such an extreme length that several of these films to not even carry his name. So what happened? Well, may one thousand nine hundred and sixty eight strike, student uprising revolution in the air could are been from participating income to protest income and essentially paying all the central roles in shutting it down for the year. This was the year he also made his very first and credited work, Sin Attract, a collection of short political essays. He s admitted several and others, including rest night, also contributed. It depicted real images from the protests and the clashes between strikers, protesters and the police. Don't be are Gore in also contributed, and remember that name. In many ways could arch in the my grew smaller, which is a little bit ironic. Even documentary about Rome's sympathy for devil. You know, in the midst of all this, but the joy of learning, we're literally just two people in a room and, ironically, name I feel like any other. It's literally just students and workers sitting in a field and with no faces shown. The focus became clearer and clearer political agitation, socialism, Marxism and revolution. We can neatly separate this period into two sections, his work with the Sega Verde Group and his films with Anne Marie me, will could ard Goren and others formed the Marxist, Leninist moist collective, the Zeka Verda group, named after father of Soviet montage, and together, depending on how you count, they made five to nine films. They N leashed a form of cinematic exploration it's almost unparalleled, crafting cinematic essays coupled with complete disdain for any conventions, or or the chorum for that matter. In nineteen seventy one S, Vladimir at Rusa would ard Gore in and sip their pants to pull out video cameras. That very same breakti and focus of distancing the viewer entirely from the screen and asking them to think critically about what they were watching was taken to some of its most extreme limits. And then we see quite a colossal shift in the cinema. After the group disbanded. In nineteen seventy two, we rapidly move away from the erect political agitation and to watch a far more intimate and personal, yet somehow even more distance style. In one thousand nine hundred and seventy three, he formed the production company Sonny Marsh with me of it, and they started exploring and experiment menting with the image itself. You could easily see how many will impact good arts work far more than the seek a word group as a whole, as it plays into so much of its later career. We start to see the play and projection with you are TV's brought in and if kind of framing and telling stories and essays that greep you in a kind of ad unusual intensity. In this episode we will try to understand why so many fans act as if don't look at our died in one thousand...

...nine hundred and sixty seven, perhaps enveloped in a car crash similar to the beginning of weekend or at the very least again late in that coma until the S. We will dive deeper into the two could art films that still get held up by critics and remain respected, the revolutionary total bean, with evens, one pound and Game Fonda, and the far more low key numero duce, a stud of the power relations within a family, both present on the days with pictures don't test top tals and best films of all time. We've also singled out wind from the east as one of the clearest examples of the work of the Seagut Order Group joining me today, or Clement mature and Saul. And to just get this conversation started, what was your very first reaction to seeing Godard nineteen seventy s work? Hi, I'm mature from friends. My first reaction to good are s work was actually my first reaction to good as. For some strange reason, Mir do was actually the first could half in I ever saw. The reasons for that involved random DOT ORG and my willingness to explore cinemaut in a random way. A bristly. I was aware of what good I was and I was aware that his s s work was different from his s work, but still it was amazed by the willingness to experiment with the cinematic language and very pleasantly surprised by the playfulness that went along with this, the kind of self seriousness I expected higher so from Australia. I think this is going to be an interesting topic to discuss because even though I'd been watching Goddard film so pretty much the whole of my cinematic journey. I would have seen breathless around eighteen or nineteen years ago. It's actually only this year, with his s films being released on movie, that I've actually got a chat to watch some s got are the same three from the s now in, though I'd say most of his s films. Before this year I hadn't seen it single film lad done in the N S. it's an interesting period to look at because obviously got dad's aggressed laws of filmmaker over the years and I think coming to his s work as it experienced in a file is at work is really interesting to look at because it challenges the medium in different ways that maybe we wouldn't thought possible before. Hello, this is Clem from friends. My first reaction watching his films from the s was well, it's obvious that this is good out but at the same time I think God is one of those filmmakers that has real progression and I think that is should watch team order because they are real phases in his work and I think the S S is a phase on its so on. I definitely agree with Clem that good eyes an interesting filmmaker. In part the progress we can see that we're not said the problems, the ARC. We can see in his films the evolution that is very apparent, and I think that's the case with the films will talk about in this episode. And what about you, Chris? What was your experience with the good as s films? Well, I actually thought quite a few of these long before they came to movie, but in much poorer quality and before I had a knowledge of the kind of politics I could hardle talking about, and I think it's interesting that they still work for me because I've always been so fascinated by the type of formatic focus. I got our hearts another current. We work films and find different ways makes films interesting. But what I didn't realize, because because the time this theme mad, it does think Greek, is that what was actually know what he's talking about, to become a lot more female, become a lot more understandable, so they're not ask mad and comical as originally at all. Seeing them again now that they're on movie, I think it's showcase that, you know, it's not just go are being crazy and creative. It also showcases the kind of political interest they had. I think that was the main takeaway from it this time around and bring us old to the next question. How would you describe with our s s work is, especially to someone who hasn't seen any of it? Do you think could dark fans thinking about venturing past one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven, especially, you know, if they be jumping in before night s, need to be prepared in some way. Well, I think that if they're a fan of good helt in, know what to expect because they know that he's the type of filmmaker that is always trying to push the boundaries. I guess it's s period is a period that fits well between the s and the S. I guess the S is a little bits...

...more experimental than the S. is late s work. Obviously we mentioned the weekend, but we can also mentioned the Chinese film that starting to experiment with sound and images and a different kind of storytelling, and I would say that is work in the S. s takes those concept and take them even further away and that the next rum political player. That which is obviously because may sixty eight upen between weekend. That was reason one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven and the rest of his filmography it's interesting to hear tick about the politics and Godard's work because I'm pretty sure he said force quotas, saying that or film is political. And I would say even the early s films, some films like a petite so dad, have got some very wrong political overtones, or undertones in them, if you want to look at it. And so all of his films were political, but definitely in the sevens seems to become more pronounced. In terms of preparation. I don't know if Godard fans need to be prepared before going in to see a s films. Anybody who's seen a number of films is down the s knows that he likes pushing the envelope. If you seen some of here of his later films from the S and later as a lot of word play in there. He loves word play. When I sat down and I watched over Biena and Memro do, they were very impressive, but they weren't fine blowing in that I was sort of expecting thing like that from God are. It wasn't wasn't unexpected what it was doing. It was still impressive, but it I don't think it's something where I needed to be prepared for it before going into seeing it. Only thing would be the politics of politics do come out very strong, but it's the same for a lot of his work from the S or beyond. If he'd seen any of us cos the S or s, things like forever motes are which obviously watched a movie also which is very, very against Swiss neutrality and the Bosnian war. Everything has a lot of politics and there. So don't think any of it was too surprising. That's just my take on it. If you're talking about someone who's a fan of Godda from the S and who's only seen that, I do think it's they should maybe be warned to a certain extent. You. Certainly they would be ready for some experimentation. Got Out did that in the S, but he did go much further in the S. I also would say that the politics show up in a very different manner the present again in the S, and I would actually certainly I agree with God are saying that's all famous political, but these films are much more explicitly political to a point that's it's certainly not necessary, but some passing familiarity with Marxism Leninism might be helpful. I certainly it helps kind of understand, especially the gave out of films. Yeah, I think I agree with all of you. Actually, I think that if you, as a good art fact of followed his career up at sixty seven, and it is so like you knows. You saw weekend and two or three things I know about her and you kind of imagine that. You mingle those together there and adding more political agitation, you pretty much there. You will know more or less what to expect from his s work. The only thing I would say is you should probably jump over a couple of his s films to start with seeing about the stuff, because if you look at Fens, is the very first film that's in some ways of credit as a seek about film but was released as a good art film, which is a feel like any other. That was in some ways just like it's an it's an interesting conversation on the field. That's all they do is sit in the field. You don't see faces. You may get something out of it, but but just to drawing little anecdote, when that film was shaped to English speaking audiences, Audi was ruined just to troll with our fans abroad. There's doesn't make any sense whatsoever. But you saw him do the same thing with films of the listener in two thousand and ten, you know, adding now do subtitles. So they just if you just want to get the more of a continuous journey, jump along to you know the main thing about the group of the S and it will seem a lot smoother, I would say. I guess when I'm just difference would be to just to say that his seventies films are almost only, if not all, essay films, which you cannot say of his earlier films. That is a pretty substantial difference and something that I think is worth maybe mentioning to someone who is ventewing into that. Yeah, that's so true as well. I...

...mean I think it though from essay aspect in this earlier work, especially on twitter things. But yeah, that's really most the main distinctions and they also have a lot more of a niche outlook. Like you mentioned that you're not of anything about the mark system. We don't do I think about work less. And then there's them. It, it seems might just seem completely impenetrable and confusing and bizarre, even more so some of it earlier worked and I suppose this authorties sort to my last question before we actually occurred, which is why do you think could art work in that the s was almost impossible to see until this point and was, you know, dismissed or even directly disliked by so many even good art fans up until this point? But I think it has to do with both the form and the contents. But it's much more difficult to access, so obviously that's going to be less interesting for providers like movie and others to give because it's just number of people who might watch it is reduced. So just I mean economically, it's not as viable. But I also think that among good of fans, the reason why they would reject it is that so many people love good are for formal reasons. Why? For how his films look, for his talents as a filmmaker and a lot of his of these films, even though they did do show that's talent and that's interesting. Form. Contents is much more front loaded and again the politics are frontloaded and I think that's is a big turn off how many people, especially because they are quite radical politics. I would probably agree about the politics and the heavy handedness of the politics being one of the main reasons why sevenies work was maybe overlooked a bit until now. Like Matthew said, I would say also reason why people would like Goddard films would be for things like breathless. They are girl the gun, things like Alphaville and creating an exciting adventure, things like contempt. Is All about the film industry, so of course film fans are going to want to go out and droves to see that. Oh, I think with a lot of the seventies films, when it became more about the politics rather than about creating that a year adventure, girl gun. That's all that you need to be able to create an interesting film, I think that's maybe when people started to go away. Not Quite sure why he is. s work is a lot more available than his s work, and know a lot of his s films have been released on DVD in Australia and none of his seventies work has, although I guess maybe with controversy of things like how Mary, maybe that provoked a bit more general interest in his work. Yeah, I would agree with both of you. Another sing also that we could mention is that it's films from the S. Well, most of them were not made under his name, under good as name, but under coope tea vert off, and maybe for some this so it has films that are not well that I've good are involved, but since so it was not only good out, it was also people involved. And maybe in the first place some people didn't associated good are with this group and those would did. Maybe we're afraid that good are didn't enough room to work and it wouldn't feel like you good our film enough for them to enjoy them, even though I read somewhere that good had a very, very huge impact on the making all all of those films. But I could maybe see someone before the Internet searching for films and just seeing this films made by Whopeza vert off and probably not necessarily associating it with good A. I think it's an interesting point. You might clem about God od's name not being very pronounced or that it's going under a completely different name in the S, and it's interesting point about the collaboration, because obviously God did a lot of anthology films the S I grow up. Or kind he pronounce that? I this one they do with Hasteleni and Russellini and a few other directors and therefore for Godd fans when they go into watch it would have only been seeing a snipper of it. So if they see his name, was to be the whole lot of other directors, maybe people on I seventy as well, like or you know, it's just going to be one segment out of a whole bunch of segments rather than something which is purely got Odd's vision. I think as far as how they were received at a time, it's also, I think, has to do with the genuine way that we moved away from me sixty eight, I think. I mean, we can get into that to the too later, but I think good I was not in vogue basically in the s. He was seen as someone who stayed in the s maybe even though he kitty didn't in terms of what what his films were. I think there's a bit of that...

...as when getting to throll really, really great points and while obviously it works credit under the the government group, it's really important to know that could over first of all, the only key directory involved in all of these films, that usually it would be him and one other director working on the time, usually him and Gore in so you can still feel in essentially every way that this is about art film, and at least in most of the cases. But while we from the east, clearly takes us so many of the idea the end of pushing before it does take them to another extreme. And interestingly in terms of collaboration, it has one seen in the middle of it all where the entire cast and crew start talking about how the film is done, what emershes they use, what images they represented in the film, and it showcases a kind of spontaneous collaborative effort that really strike a blow to the heart author theory, if we will. But what they spin from the east. And why is it so interesting? Why did we pick it to discuss today? And I would say that one of the main ways is that it is stripped down everything a film can be. It does actually have one of the biggest Italian stars at the time, Young Maria Lalante, who rested all this is especially I will know from to do the band the ugly and for a few dollars more. But was so many incredible Italian films and here is essentially just walking about with a gun, sometimes with a cowboy had, representing this kind of state versionary violence and everything around him is stripped down. Violence is essentially represented by throwing red paint at people and, once again, like essentially all of good art films, it is a political essay, it is agitation, propaganda. What is so interesting here here is that you have these a passionate speeches essentially placed over cinematic footage, often dust, with people being prepared for the filming and eating, and it has this kind of semi ironic contrast which you can see so strongly in good arge previous work as well. And it even has a pretty extreme premise, which is very interesting for anyone, you know, fascinated by film history and film theory, which is that any films focusing on narrative and character essentially becomes part of this broad respectacle. And they go full on, a full frontal attack against Soviet cinema as well, essentially showcasing that the only cinema that is to them at this point in time, valuable is the kind of cinema that that touches you from the screen and makes you think about what you're seeing again, in the purest bricktian tradition. I know that especially material and I will deserve any ways about this film. I think this will be a really exciting discussion. So let's get started with materia. Well, so I think there is on this. So the wind from the East is good, and I think good at the point where they think that cinema, as you mentioned, and perhaps even all art forms, or at least all picture art, is inherently bourgeois, capital list and conservative, and the film even refers to the birth of photography as the origin of that. This film feels like the result of that realization. Right it both aims to present the theory that old cinema is representation and that representation is basically capitalist, and it also wants perhaps to be fute it by offering something new, something revolutionary, that will be a new leftist cinema, more politically responsible cinema. I would argue that in that respect it's a failure, at least for me. I think one of the main issues is baked within the Dige Verto group project, and I think you can see this in how the film attacks the notions of self managements and General Assembly. You have a bunch of political sensibilities part of this product here, including an actual political leader of the May Sixty eight movement, then you're going to bend it. He's actually credited as a screenwriter and him is probably not that well, no, not side of friends, but infants. He is basically the most famous young person to come out of that movement. And you also have Italian brigade members. So it's basically a hotchpote of political sensibilities and the result is, as good are himself might put it, disconnect between sound and image, at least for me,...

...the images are the results of the group's endeavor. Apparently one of the ideas was to make a leftist Spaghetti Western starring general a Vrounte, for example. But the sound and, perhaps crucially, the editing feels all good, are and Gran and at this point they have no interest in narrative cinema, as we said, as in representation, as they put it. So you've got these images and this long political monolog by a Jazim Ski, and they do use the images to illustrate some of the points they're making bout cinema. I think, Chris, you mentioned the violence being illustrated by this, but paint essentially, which is essentially how it's done in cinema always, but it's very obvious here. But to me it feels very disjointed, not very coherent, perhaps because they simply haven't resolved their core issue. They id it, identified all the ways in which cinema is politically invalid for them and they've ended up with nothing left. It's a cinematic dead end. The General Assembly sections with which Chris mentioned, in which we hear the group members disagreeing. They feel like God eyes trying to win arguments after the fact, to the power of editing and all of that is very interesting as a cultural artifact, both in terms of God ass personal journey and the border left Intelligentsia's post sixty eight males. But I don't find it successful at all as a film, and it doesn't help that I personally find the political content that this lends on to be kind of violent, essentially regorgitating my is propaganda at one point the meaning political opponents of Mao. So if I thought that this was more formally successful, maybe I could look past that. And that's also always a way you can argue that what is being said in the film is not necessarily what the film wants to say. But I think because there is this disconnect for me, it ends up just just being some kind of mariage propaganda, which I don't care for. I think the main difference between how the two of US successful we taught the form, was because I was personally it has blown away by the kind of cinematic intensity and the kind of cinematic exploration that went on here. I like it. Is Love this form of anti cinema where everything is stripped bare, you're constantly considering each aspect of the film and there's so much playfulness. You have all of the main things that you love about God, art from the s, but it's really brought together by this disconnect between what we are told what we're seeing a lot the fact it's split in the middle where it also critiques the film up until that point. They also think you're absolutely correct in that this is in so many ways more its propaganda, even though would are may have started to change his mind slightly in the editing room, or at least had disagreement with manage proponents, which clearly played out in the editing room as well, to get this really interesting film that's that has a lot of points and hustle of really intriguing film, theory of really intriguing realization of that film theory, but then also attempts to be really clear cut politial agitation. And to the latter point I do agree. I don't think it is for people who aren't actually more existent this most already, and I guess this ties in with sixty eight as well, where you had, you know, the typically Marxist student, but you had the syndicalist unions clashing, and you have points in this film where you know they're essentially ripping apart syndicalism and presenting Marxism as the only way, but their argument for it is essentially just it's not Marxistm that's literally the extent of the argument, which comes across as so silly and tin which I guess for me personally, selvish doesn't buy the scope of the cinematic exploration. But yea, I can see how so many people would be turned off by that. It's also worth noting, though, that thinking about the group actually toured with these films, showing them at unions and student groups etc. And that we can probably assume that their target audience already had an inclination to agree with them, which is a really interesting part of this as well. Okay, I'll just address something completely different from her. What you to talked about school is the western aspect of the film. As you said, Chris, I think the film revolves around this almost western type of stories featuring this prisoner that is being held captive by Maria volunteer who, as you said, was pretty big back then for staring in western and I think it's interesting to see that you would take this very American...

...and Occidental type of film that is Western, and to use this kind of parody in a film that is called wind from the east. Yeah, so I really it's interesting to take the Western which is this quintessential American thing, and especially when the film is called, as you as you mentioned, win from the East. There's this opposition between West and east, which is pretty cool, which is certainly something good arcres about it. I think that's actually in many Speghetti Westerns, this kind of element of taking the American myth and we exploring it in a different political way. However, I'm a little curious about what you guys think about the actual content here and how it relates to what good are is doing. Aside from the violence and the general notion of representation being illustrated with this western do you see a particular point in what is told in this Western semi story? I think that the plot itself, I can meet a contacted such an extent that the western story itself doesn't really neither. But still there aren't elements that are carried through this. You do have the what we say the Marxist intellectual, who is, you know, this traitor to the movement, and you do have various forms of repressed people which in one scene, you know, when they hang out, and literally hang they've been they've been violently assaulted, that they have this talk of what they've done, you know, they shot the sheriff of West Berlin, etc. And they eventually realize they have all of the same enemies before they rise up. So there's obviously a team illustration of the lower class getting together and rising up. But but that's the extent of it really. And of course young Ya Volanta is again representation of the enforcement of the law and of the violence, with the Marxist intellectual as a ally, though personally like what really works there for me, especially with the Western, is really the formatic exploration where you do take not spaget the western but you strip it all back with the theory of a breaking away from narrative, breaking away from characters, focusing in on these distancing effects which, regardless of how you think the message is self, worked did I really think both effects work? I think that they challenge the medium in such a way you haven't really seen before evening with darge work, and that's the main reason why it worked so incredibly well for me. And just to conclude on the western aspect, it's also interesting to note that global Russia plays apart in the film. Another big fan of his films, but I definitely did get vibe of his films in wind from the East. Is especially is film from a one thousand nine hundred and sixty nine, Antonio's Mortez. They were probably both shot at the same time, but I just felt that there was this experimental type of Western vibe in the win from the east that would also later be found in Jodohdofski western the s. So maybe win from the east the bit more impact on Western from the s that we may have sought at first. I didn't actually end up seeing when from the east. What you guys have said about the film makes it sound really intriguing. I am not a fan of film minimalism in general. What Matthews said about the film in particular, even though I storry gay, but one star on letter box to actually fastinates me the most about it. So I I do look for the sitting down and watching at some stage, at which case I'll be able to then get back to you guys about it. Really looking forward to that soul and to take us over to the next film well be talking about to what be m what they're seeing here is really interesting because essentially it is a more mainstream, a more broad way of implementing the same political ideas as when from the east and the early Seker Verda Group, and the group was still involved here. But unlike the group's mantra of being credited as a whole, the film is credited as being directed by what dark and Gore in and of course it's stars, even as Motan and gain Fonda not being one of the biggest stars, in front some of the biggest stars in the US at the time. It's clear that, unlike the earlier work, which is quite niche and clearly targeted to watch people already close to the position of...

...the INVERTI group. This film has a much broader appeal. It doesn't take the same hard line. Wherein wing from the East, you know anything that's not Marxist, it's essentially discarded as in a just trash. Here you have characters repeating you don't have to be a leftist, or you don't think have to be on the left to think these things. This is trying to get really reach out to the French people. SOLICTIC. It's also a lot more consumable, whilst keeping certain breaking techniques and playing with the form, and I think this is really interesting fun play here, going all the way back to tow three things I know about her, where it just starts with this idea of making a film. You know, you see the ships being with. Now you see them talking about where you can place the film and all the day. Now you know these little ideas of workers and farmers etc. Play in. You just see tops of them completely unrelated as they try to work out what it will be until they um in on our to lead characters, him and her. At the start you don't even ssarily know that you'll be in for something over wordly political. I mean you might have guessed known what Goodar has been doing. But you just introduced to these two characters who then certainly get involved by accident in a kind cult of factory system with the cential factory takeover, where they get trapped in the office with the General Manager for several days. And you have this kind of exploration where you see the striking workers, the kind of conversations between the bath and the workers. What's really interesting is the clarity, because we're good are earlier work is quite obviously very focused on the mark sist theory, but also very disincred here it's very clear and it's even relatively fear he let's the boss. You've probably one of the best liberal arguments that against socialism, in terms of the rising living standards for the workers, etc. You let the union come in against this more violent or more extreme action to try to calm them down, get them back into the union lines, giving really clear, good arguments why it's good to show a united front, argue reasonably, etc. And you get the workers themselves, or just frustrated by their conditions about how nothing changed is how unions are no longer scary. Well, also showcasing their own inability to really express these ideas, which is a really interesting part of this film and, together with the colors and the creativity and the messaging, is clear this is one of Godard most accessible films of the period. It clearly one of the most beloved film of the period as well. So let's just all down into what this film does, what did well, if it worked for you at all, starting with Saul. I really love to be on it's my favorite film is time, I can't pronounce properly. It's a very interesting film because, like Chris said, it's a lot about its own inception from writing the checks needed to make a movie a movie actually occurring. A lot of it's also about a film sets and the way films are constructed. There's an open doll house view of the officers. When the prapped in there a sort of seeing its side was like the building has been cut in half. We're looking and seeing all these different levels at once. The open all hell structure was, of course, used by Jerry Lewis in the ladies man in one thousand nine hundred and sixty one, and it's something where you can really see that the French critics who are praising Lewis has sort of taken these things on board and it's very interesting to see that structure in there, because the factory boss teen there like scarring about like mice in there. Everything looks really strange and like very comical from a distance, but obviously they're very stressed out at the same time. It is interesting. Like Chris mentioned, they're trapped in there for days. I don't remember off hand for given a specific amount of time, but everything very quickly turns to Chius. Everything gets scattered everywhere, everything becomes a complete mess. But sort of like even though they're ahead and they're in control of everything, when they get trapped inside there and forced to stay in the in same environment as the workers, but able to cope with any of that. And of course the comical highlight of the film is the boss not being able to fight anywhere to urinate and eventually having to smash open a window and desperation just so he doesn't end up urinating all over the ground. Lots of really interesting humor in there and a lot of it was, I think, borderline, even absurdist, little bit surreal. It's not quite realistic, it's...

...a little bit more of the top just in order to sort of like give that political message forward about the fact that those who are up, they in control, actually are really in control, and when a union strike ghost take however, they kin a sort of lose control and everything basically goes to hell. So we mentioned earlier that good his career has an act to it and I think it's very clear over the three films we are mostly talking about here and to that, yeah, is very clearly an evolution from the givet of stuff. I think one of the key things happening is that over these three films, good are is kind of reclaiming his status as an autor. He's just part of the group in the previous film. Now he's just collaborating with Gran and it. He shows up in some sense personally much more, even though he's not literally on screen. I don't think there's the way that he introduces the film along with the female voice over. I think that's an'me ski yeah, I think it's just much more effective for me as a way to broach the divide between the people talking and the people they're talking to. There's a conflict here with that that is addressed very directly. That is that good are is an intellectual and that the way he speaks about these political issues is very adenating. It's only talking to intellectuals, essentially, and I think that's the case with the gather of films and I think with Tebia, taking these big stars who are left his stars is does matter. I think, then, this more conventional narrative. It allows him to, at least theoretically, speak to a much broader audience and speak more emotionally, and I think we see that in the way he approaches the strikers. This is, overall, a much more even handed film than the vondest. It's not as much of a thesis film. It feels more like an actual essay, an actual way to ask questions politically rather than providing answers. As Chris mentioned, you have the boss making his case for liberalism, you also have the Union delegate making his own case and you have the workers making their own. I do think God as hearts is much closer to the workers, but as opposed to a previous film whereas Chris mentioned, some ideas are just rejected out of hand because they're not part of the group that Goda belongs to. And especially you have you already have in any other thing. This conflict between the actual workers and the unions, that the unions are this institution that, in the end, is also suppressive, I think. But are still think that and I think this is still present in this film. But as a viewer you have more leeway to actually see these issues play out and to make your own mind. You have these people presented as people. It's more humanistic as a film, which I think I respond to much more more. I just thought I might respond to something which Matthew said there. He said it was a good idea having these big name actors in there, like giant fund I left this APP actress to sort of appeal to a broad a spectrum or film goes, however, but I sort of field that if somebody really liked cat blue, somebody really like lute, that down to watch too of Burbi and I think they would be, you know, absolutely confounded or what they're watching. I don't know if they would enjoy it, but it's definitely interesting casting decision. Having this two big names in the film was a great way for good art to have his film talk about, because, from what I remember, both of these actors are not very used to playing in this type of films, so it was certainly very interesting to see them in more essay type of film. I have to say that overall, to be beyond didn't do much for me. It had a few interesting ideas that I really liked. I liked the very first scenes, intro, which says that to make a film we need money, and you see them writing checks to everyone involved into film. I feel like it's really shows how much money it's needed to make films and that not everyone can can afford it at the time. I think, as you said, everyone gets to make them point and it's a film that is a bit more conventional and straightforward in its message. Yours have sins towards the end of the film, I think, where we have a brief view of the working conditions, even though the passages shown a very brief you can feel how alienating to work looks, how repetitive the tasks are. There is also, as a supermarket scene at the end which I thought was interesting, this few...

...minutes scene that just showcases people with their cords in the supermarket filled with any type of products. It also features this guy trying to sell is leftist books right in the supermarkets, which is strange because it's definitely not the type of place you would expect to see that and expect people to be receptive. So yeah, it has some good ideas, but for some reason it didn't really work out for me. I guess maybe it's because it was more conventional that is also from this period. I guess I was a bit less focus on the story, but I think that it could be a good introduction to this period from good help. I'm sorry here even like the film or claimed, but I do really like the fact you mentioned the supermarket, saying that's really stuck really firmly ingrind in my mind in the week since of viewing the film, and just the whole way the supermarket was filmed with this elongated tracking shot, just reminded me a lot about the one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven goddard film weekend, which is all about this long traffic jam due to a road accident, and when I saw on that's what immediately sprung to mind. So for me that was like Godd's commentary on what the supermarket culture is like, the mass distinct factory culture is like. It's a lot like a traffic jam. It's a lot of like a road accident, is selling which is like really clogged up and which isn't really natural to the flow and the order of things in society here, and yet it's something that we rely upon and then we want to under sell to a beam as I feel that's not experimental or interested inform, because it still does a lot of really creative worth, even though it is clearer and more accessible. Even in the conversations within the factory. You know, we will have dame found as a journalist, ask people questions and instead of hearing her ask and seeing the first respond is shot slightly distorted and you have one of the people watching this unfolding describing it, and you have all of these scenes where the playing around with what you see, who speaking, and you do have door shots towards the end, like the supermarket scene, which are just this fantastic tractice coming back and forth and seemed develops, and I think that it does a lot of really great work as if you're interested in good art from a protective format, still think you can get a lot out of it. We want to dive into the supermarket scene and that plot that kind of ties in with the film as a whole is this conversation has had earlier in the film with which says that the union was to control your life from you know, eight hundred and twenty five at the party was to control everything else. And throughout the film you kind of have this dissenting opinion and this rist soft critique of both the unions and, you know, the Communists, and the socialist part is as stagnating the socialist project and holding the workers down, and film is essentially encouraging the workers to rise up and take a stance on their own. And I think one of the most interesting things about that scene, as a tands back and forth, is at every time it hits the place where you have this you know, intellectual, I think is a member of the Communist Party, selling this work focusing on how to essentially be more civil and work within the system which, you know, for good art, especially with be compromising in betrayal, and how he's you know, essentially the chanting out the name for his book. And then I really is something like it used to be seventy, now it's four hundred and ninety, and it's just this chanting of the discount. It's just it's a discount it's a discount. This is repeated and repeated before it fades out as the camera moves and faiths in as kind comes back, and I think it really comments arm know how good are port that the movement as a whole was losing its way, but wearing is root and trying to show case this to the audience. Yeah, I also love that final scene, that final big traveling over the supermarkets. I think it's gorgeous and I think you see good are going back to being a formal list of bits with that. I also think it's a film about dissillusionment with the Communist Party, with the syndicate. He was already pretty dissolution, I think, before, but now he's looking at things kind of externally, not feeling that he is part of the movement anymore, I would say, and I think that makes his views more interesting. I think you see it through the character of Eve Monton, who is kind of a good as standing, and you also see the conflict that God are feels himself to be in with Monton working for advertising, and I think you see that with God are having to make this slightly more commercial firm with these stars. Obviously that's reflected in the story and yeah,...

...it's really the film of those sixty eight matters for me, and that scene, that supermarket scene, is full of that. The bits with the Communist Party member is kind of absurdist humor even because having a communist member talk about the discount, as you mentioned, that is kind of a bunual touch. And I think the the scene where the loss has to pee is also very even in I think just generally too amia is for me a return to form. Literally he is annoying himself to use his natural talent for cinema again, which he was kind of restrained out of in the together to the group. It's also really interesting book and to this new kind of cinema and this new political work that working on, starting from sixty eight, because essentially the whole premise of it is may one thousand nine hundred and sixty eight, may one thousand nine hundred and seventy two, which is when this was shotter presented for, and essentially it analyzing everything that has been happening, not to the point where you know, you have the Monton character speaking directly to the camera, being interviewed, talking about how we know he was involved in a new wave seeing such a long time ago, how he was swept up at sixty eight, how so many other people were as well. And there's how everyone went along with their own lives afterwards. And I think it's like there's a lot of self criticisms. It's not just the critism for the parting, criticism for the unions, pricism for word movement is right now. It's also criticism of himself, because we don't know how inspired the mouton character is from Goddard. You see him talking about how we know he didn't do as much as you should. He went to a couple of demonstrations. He has even the humility, you know, he says. You know he would see the rectors across the room and you wandering like, what the hell are you doing here, given the type of films you make, and then reflecting that they probably thought exactly the same about him. So you just had this kind of disillusionment, this kind of critique of the intellectuals for kind of involved, a kind of present themselves as revolutionary, but then don't really do much, don't really participate, don't really think about this, go on with their lives as well, and it test also this ties together this entire project in a way where which started off extremely radical but just dissenting into smaller and smaller niche focuses and then ending up with this much grander scale with just a lot of confusion, dissolutionments and then certainty, because I do think at the heart of this essay is just this a day that they doesn't really know the path forward. There's a call to action for the workers stand up in centially any way they can, but that's it and it doesn't really seem to be able to give any further advice, whereas the previous essays were essentially handbooks in the way they would this is what we're doing, this is our political ideology, this is the aim. Here's this so much and certainty, is so much critique at decent amount of sadness, and that's really really interesting to watch. Yes, it's good admitting that he doesn't have the solution and that people will have to find a solution. It's in the in the sense of fame that is very contemptuous of everyone, but most especially of himself, and I think those find some kind of hope in the workers characters in there. I think that honesty and they're experience, they have in doing this strike. I think in that sense it is both extremely pessimistic because everyone kind of looks bad, but there is just this s tiny glimmer of hope that I think makes the fame work and it just want to add one more thing, which dot was really ink in air workers are trying to explain their plight to gain front as a journalist, and they start to explain the working conditions, etc. Until they literally stop because realize they're saying exactly the same thing as a union records say. This is comes element like you know, this is a film about in a factory strike, a factory sit in, a factory takeover. But the kind of critique in this thing that every single time this is done, this is shown, this is like someone sees a factory for the first time. People come in and they say, you know, Oh, this is sad, these are not great working conditions, and then they leave. This is essentially about the film does as well, but it's self critical enough to just implant is Ada that this isn't enough and that the workers just don't have the words to express the reality right now, and I think there's this lack of a voice, is lack of knowing what to say and what can break through the views as a whole. It's also it's very understated. It's not something that's shown a great amount of focus. It also feels like a pivotal scene and it is also really fascinating that this was essentially the end of an era. Teek avert, the group, with disband shortly after. They made a really short essay film called letter to gain, which is addressing itself to gain Fonda after the event, and then the group is no more. Could our teams up with amory me will, who he would eventually end up in a relationship with for at last of the state's fifty relationship, and they would together form the production...

...company Sonny Marsh, which was active until very beginning of the eighties. It's encompassing the entirety of the rest of the S and even though they're not as productive as the Seeker Verti Group, this is also a period which is incredibly important to could dart as an artist. It shows a lot of development, they think. It also showcases this kind of protject with a more equal partner. You can see and feel how could our dominates within the Sega Vert Group, but with his partnership with me, with his cinema drastically changes. He was always known for this sarcastic double edged sword where almost anything can be seen as both ironic and true at the same time. In the later films this is torn down to a large extent. Do you get something a lot more earnest and the essays become, in many ways, a lot calmer and clearer, but also a lot more distance, because what maybeill and good art relationship really developed into is a further focus on what the cinematic medium can do, and one of the highlights of this is numeral do, which place on the ability to have two screens at the same time. They play with projection and also from formatic perspective, so incredible set. They do split screens with two TVs, so you will have, for instance, a scene unfolding with one character of one TV and other characters on the other TV still interacting. Sometimes it it's going to the image as sometimes, with the same scene you see scenes of conversation juxtapost on top of each other. It's just this interplay and how the medium works and, especially given the title, these two different screens once again, and what is also interesting is that even though it's so distancing and so theoretical in its visual art and form. It is also a really clear and say saying essay on the power relationships with in a family, seeing the husband and wife clash. It interposing sex, calling self both a film about politics and a porn and it's does so many unusual, especially for good art, and interesting things are. It feels more personal, it feels more intimate and this intimacy is also contrasted by how distance it is. Is Really one of the most complex works good art ever participated in, and it stands reason why it's really held up, even though, on the by handful of good bos an academics that's one of his most important works. I really enjoyed numero do. It was a very surprising and challenging film for me. I found it very similar to watching a Michael Snow movie. So we like the experimental films of Michael Snow. He's got a film like so is this, which is just words in a screen, the way that snow players around with the size the words adds a lot of humor in and and a thing happens with the two television sets in numero do. So often we just see the two at the same size, but sometimes one screen is larger than the other screen. Sometimes we just see one screen and we don't see the second screen. The said that we get from that come to the point where you get shots later on in the film and you can only see one screen, and makes you wonder what's actually going on the second screen, because when the two screens are together, sometimes a complement each other, sometimes they also contradict themselves, which is really interesting because God out of course, has been quite a as saying that cinema is truth, that twenty four frames per second, and in the film he's challenging what we understand to be truth. Oh, what is true on one screen is sometimes contradicted on another screen. Something else which also seemed very much like Michael Snow to me was the way that shots would transition. Could be looking at one character and then you have like a black and white reaction shot. They would sort of get pasted over it, which is very similar to what Michael Snow was doing in Corpus colossom. That was, of course, twenty seven years later and God I had had already started doing this over here in Numero do. Like Chris said, a lot of it's about higher relationships within the family and I guess how we view those relationships, which is really interesting. When I watch the film I thought this is an amazingly dysfunctional couple. They are terrible parent just the way they're doing all this sexually explicit stuff in front of their kids, the way they walk about the house naked. But I don't know if that's necessarily something that's true to...

...it or just the way that I've been deceiving it. But it's just interesting the power play that exists there, and even with a title Numero do so who is actually number two in the household? There's also a humorous thing that the other woman is constipated. So you've got the number two's in that way also as the euphemism for a bow movement. And of course you've got the number two as the television sets. You've got the second television and they're also and just one. The thing that I think I'll mention is that it's an incredibly funny film, also at times as an amazing party in there. We're always on the two screens. Is just flickering lights. The most screen start the flicker. It's like a pair of eyes. It's like in Monn cloth, the Juck Tutti film, where you have the house there with the chip people the windows and looks like eyes. The same sort of things happening in new and Rod. So it's all about God dad having build fun, also with film form, which is always always been about. So I think this film really represents God. I didn't really represents him at his best, when he is at his most challenging, but also at is most fun and interesting. It's not a very angry film. A lot of his lighter films seem very angry. I've got very heavy politics in there. It's a little more, I don't quite lighthearted, but it's a little more relaxed. Maybe a new Moro Do. So I think we will do is either a combination or a capitulation. For me it's definitely a crimination. I think it's my favorite of the three films we've discussed in one of my favorite good all. But in some sense it is a capitulation because he is kind of accepting that his nature or what he is is a formalist. That's the whole political stuff. Of course he cares about it, but what he is is someone who is just very talented at using cinema and using it in ways that explore the form more than really the content, even though the content is interesting to here as well. I think you see that, as so mentioned earlier, with the world play and especially with the title you who do has many, many meanings possible to it. I think one of them is also number two, as in the second sex, because the film is about sex, both in terms of physical sex, obviously we see a lot of it, and also gender relations within the couple. But when you talk about gender relations within the couple, you are talking about gender relations as a whole, because couples are so common. I mean it's a basic part of society. So I think this there is still a political angle to this, but one that is more suited to what good I can actually do, which is to experiment with the form. And another way in which we will do is can have another meaning, is in the way he uses those two TVs, as you mentioned, and with that he's essentially reinventing the short, reverse short structure, which I think is fascinating. That impressed me about the first time I saw it. I can think of another thing that does it so well. That's really we can textualizes the way we watch films and the way we watch just simple conversations. There is the scene where you have the murther talking with the daughter and, oh no, I think it's the two children talking together. When one is talking, all of a sudden you have the this image of her face, who is en large on screen. I guess that's just so new at the time, something that he could only do because he was working with video and something that really we don't we still don't see that much. I haven't seen the films of Michael Snow, so maybe maybe there's some of that as well there. But I think that's what I love about me order, is that you both have this central relations tube which I've actually found quite tender. I don't necessarily agree that they are that terrible parents. I don't know that I that it's a great thing to be as honest about sex as they are, but it doesn't seem that bad to me either. And we got a list of what one thinks. I do think the film has a lot of tenderness for those characters, which is definitely something new in good as fem maybe from the start you may all do is Proi is a film. I enjoyed the most out of the three films with discussed so far. I think the first scene was quite interesting because when good are speaks directly to the camera for a few minutes, because it's complete remake of the scene with, if more town we discussed in to Webion, which I guess makes it even more obvious that the character, even more to own plays, is good himself. Regarding the rest of sort of film, the form was obviously very interesting, as that you mentioned. Don't think it's something that was common back then and it hasn't really been reproduced. So it's definitely a very unique film, even for in good alfs filmography. I think it's it's one of his more experimental maybe it was only of me, but I was focusing a lot on the form of...

...the film, on the two television screens, trying to make something out and what I was seeing, and as a result, I maybe I wasn't focusing enough on what was going on actually on those screen the relationship that the family had. So maybe by doing this very creative setting it destructs viewers from what was actually going on on the screens. Another thing I think is interesting to point out is the fact that the film is shown on television screens and the film came out in seventy five, which was back when television became popular in friends and every household started on Ingo TV. I wonder if good art didn't forecast the fact that television would have a huge impact on society and the way that people would now consume films through television. And maybe new MAAL DO, since we're talking about the different meaning of Newmilor do, maybe new mall do is a second screen and cinema would be the first screen. Absolutely love what you said claim about the television screens and the fact that even though I watching a film, we are watching television screens within the film. It reminds me a lot of one of my very favorite films, which I seem to keep mentioning each podcast, a video drome, and Professor Brian Oblivion. In the film, video drome refuses to appear on television, except on television. It's all idea that we're seeing a screen withinside a screen in which highlights the artificiality of cinema. But I know something that you mentioned claim which you said you found it a bit distracting concentrating the two screens. I think that's kind of intentional, because God, I doesn't want us to relax into his film. Who wants us to be aware of how highly constructed it is, as well as aware of the fact that we're sitting watching a film. I guess again to use a videodrome at a forum. Sorry about this. Sort of like the opposite of sticking ahead inside a television screen and being immersed by instead, we are made hyper aware of the fact of what we are seeing is something that is being filmed and something which is being constructed. I think it's extremely interesting, especially because, like you said, it's been majoring this point in time which television screens becoming very much a part of the home, where you'd expect it to be there, like very much a part of the furniture. And just regarding the two screens and the thing that it's quite distracting, it's real shame smartphones weren't out at the time. Yeah, I think we can be pretty sure that if God are made this film today, it would be with smartphones. But I love what they were all saying ab the two screens and thinking all this happening on the other screen and the relationship between them. It actually made me think it is possible that could do. was even saying you only see one of the screens and asking questions in terms of there's power relationship, there are two people in it. You see these two screens, sometimes with two characters, sometimes with the same one in different context, and that they may be showing that TV or just you personally will only see one of these. You won't get the full story. But also adding to the form focus. You've been talking about how distracting it is. I actually think it's great creative ways to create tension and tension within the image. It's all the main things that could dard does so well and which one of the things I personally have love good art for from the very beginning, in sense that almost every single film starts out with the idea of how do we make a film work? Almost every single film is in some way a mini experiment on its own and how you can still maintain interest, and the fact that you have these two screens clearing out of you incomplete darkness creates so much suspense. When going back to good dge long introduction as well, like the suspense stays and the way he's able to do it, or the way he and me will is able to do. It is incredibly impressive because it's really just one shot of him talking, but you have his face somewhat obscured, a television set behind him showing his face talking and a projector aim the other direction and making noises, because is dis into play this duality of to Darge, the projector and the noise. You just drawn into this frame and he manages to keep your attention there, which I think it's just so impressive. And the final note on just this kind of contradiction within it between the very important essay and story power relationships and the form. I can definitely see a point and going into good our films, largely for the form, certainly influence me so...

...that I was far more focused on the form the relationships themselves, at least the first time. But as this was a rumor from me, I managed to appreciate the actual essay and the story a lot more too. And it may be that it will work very different from people giving their experience, where someone who's not interesting form the still get the essay and someone interesting form but not interested in the materials as they will still get the form. So you can still work in well two ways. So I think that's also quite interesting and tying back to what they were all saying about the relationship itself, I would actually be more on the side of mature and sense of tenderness. It's certainly, especially from the modern morality, a little bit of putting in some ways, but you do get close to these characters and to feel the tenderness between the family and relationships, which selves contrasted with violence, because what is so interesting in the essay itself and what they choose to show is again dysfunctionality of the comple but also the tenderness with a couple. You see the loving embrace says, you see the calm way they explain sex and love to their children, but then you also see, you know, moments that are far more violent. I don't want to get into letters. Think this. It's also contrasted really well and creates this kind of again, do all they of the contrast in the relationship. So there's just so much going on in this film. One thing I would have to add on the point of TV, which you guys made some excellent points about, that is also how intimate the film is. I think that is one characteristic of TV right TV is in your own hoop. You have a much more maybe intermate relationship with the things you see on TV's and the things you see in the cinema and conversely, this is a very intimate film about, among other things, sex and also the way to approaches the relationship, again, is quite intimate. I was thinking on that point. It's worth talking about and Marie Musil, who is, I think, condited as a condirector. She's basically the third news that could has, after Anacina and JEM ski, which who has involved in the two previous films we talked about, but maybe Chris can say more about that. Well. Do you think that what separates this relationship from the previous relationship is that? But May really you can really feel it an equal partner, and it's also felt in the shift, this drastic shift from God arge more sarcastic, full on humor, the kind of things it was doing too. This more you we called video arct in a way it is very different, focus on form and lighted, which does feel like a natural continuation, but also takes the partner in this how it's shown. It's interesting that, you know, could algum any ways even credits Mabel for putting this focus into the film. You know, it is actually the person who's reading up some of the dialog in film to this is also something that's consistent in their partnership, where both of them will narrate films as the man the woman. I do think that the influence he had this work is much great. They had a production company together and they really worked as equal partners. So I think this just really thing that to get bolt a new kind of cinematic experimentation and a new focus, moving from this kind of grant systematic agitation to the politics of internmental relationships near it is far more than amuse. She's just she's an equal partner in all of these films and you can really feel the impact she had on good dark matthew and Chris keep talking about all the tenderness between the characters. My reading on the film was very different, as I sort of alluded to earlier on. I felt they are are highly dysfunctional family and just the way the parents dealt with x and or thing sexual remind me a lot of the SAM and these film. Away we go, where Maggie Gillen Hall and our husband Played Two characters who actually have sex in the are saying bed, that the sleepy with their children as while the children are in the bed, and the couple just reminded me of that and I guess I don't know, maybe I sound like a bit of a prude, but I just felt the whole way they were showing off, you know, parts of the body, the way they would be adults would dance around the house naked, would encourage their children to dants about in the underway, the way the mother explained to the daughter that the hold on a body is where the bath water goes. A lot of it just seemed a very I don't know, just seem to me like they weren't quite coping with being parents, not quite coping with being able to explain things to their kids and dealing like mature adults would do, which is sort of how you would see with that dysfunction or relationship, whereas we see they're not quite as happy as they seem. Yeah, I don't know. The family are definitely quite close. They do explain things in a can't donner to their kids. A sort of felt little showing a maybe cross section of society which isn't really coping that well, and I don't know if...

...that ties into the television culture and maybe the whole idea that everybody's, you know, obsessed with sitting down and watching things on television these days. They're not getting around to explaining and talking throughout the washes in a different way. You know, it's just my reading that I brought to the film. Don't like to think of myself as a prude, so I don't know if it's just the way that I approached that. So just to try if I I think what I meant with tenderness is more the way the film a putches the character. I think there's a tenderness there. There's also some between the characters, but also there is fighting and certainly they're not perfect. I would not call them dysfunctional, but that's unfull debate. I think what's really interesting is this does show the bad and the good. So I do think that you do get tender, sweet scenes between the parents and the children, between husband and wife, and you do get some things that are highly question we do get scenes which are more violent and think that it's trying to in many ways showcase the complexity of the family unit and all of the issues and the problems in the conflicts that can arise that may seem mundane but have a very different effect. It is this take all of this in and put it together into one word, and I think that's one of the main strength of the pizza as well, as it does explore all of these contradictions, the contradiction between love and power, than annexing itself, which can even get a little bit protesque. This one comment on the way the parents act as well, and I think this may also be just a matter of shifting morals, because if you go back to the S S, the Way Parents Act interacted with the children was quite different. I mean you can see this even in films from Scalinavia. It was also normal to have in new the around the children, et CETERA. So I do think that this is just a way that society has shifted and that's why modern audiences might react a little differently. That's a completely fair point, Chris, and I think, well, it was probably about the baggage that I of you. I'm bringing to it ors review in the twenty one century that I'm bringing to it by watching the film. Do like what you say about the family power dynamics and, of course, the person who has the most power in the entire film actually isn't any of the characters, but he is God dart himself, because he's De ciding which television set to show us where the shows us both said, or just one said, how big the television sets are. So he's the person as the most power of them. I guess from that point of view I felt the characters were more horns in his movie. So I will sort of playing and manipulating them around. Yeah, I don't know. I mean I can understand the tenderness, it's just not quite what I felt while watching it. I do joke about he's actually got a lot of contempt for the characters, like the movie contempt, but I guess maybe it's just the whole distancing thing of youing it through two screens with a blackness in between. But I didn't feel like Goddard really loved the characters as much that he loved exploring different our dynamics between the characters. Just worth quickly mentioning. That's regarding to him contempt. There is actually seen here that reminded me. Are Not of the scene in which equally is describing, because in bowder's body and you have a very similar scene here. I think they are kind of sister films in a sense, very different views of relationships. I think it's also really interesting that it isn't Nessa films is. You canfinitely spoiled in the fine I seen them. You actually have these points bought, that it is good Dard who is, you know, the manipulated, and even get accusations from the main actress in the form of him choosing what to tell, him forming a story and leaving it when there re feels like it. It opens and ends with gold ARD and it ties in this Pardnamic, this form of representation into the film as well, and this form of just bringing everything at once, every sensibility, contrasting views and the film working in so many different facets really represents what good army will would do for the rest of the decade as well. You see it in here and elder where they took material that was shot by the seeing a working group and we cut it into their own word and it feels so much closer this to you do feel the expensation between what's happening in France what's happening there elsewhere, and even there you also have the family watching TV and representation of the world still plays into it and even more interesting though they're hardly seen an essentially impossible to get God arm will would also make two TV shows in this period focusing on the same things, increasing the tenants, increasing the play and the creativity and just how you can explore form, but not in cinema, on TV and in the televisual medium. and New rod if a really good...

...starting point for all of this. And this is all of a really good way to wrap it up. But before we leave it is want to ask each go home to one final time tell our listeners whether or not they should seek out good arge work from the S. I definitely think people should check out good as film from the S. I hope we managed to show the film in the light that makes people want to seek out his work. I would suggest, however, not to start with this period of good eye. If you're new to him. Maybe start with his earlier film from the S. I think there would be a better introduction. Even though I met you said that Emil do was the first film me so I've got and you actually enjoyed it. So maybe you can start with this one and say you feel about the rest, but overall I think is a if you like good in general, there is absolutely no reason you wouldn't like his different from the s. So I would say in any case just yeah, go for it. I definitely agree with that sentiments, though, even though I soon you will do first time. Maybe we'll not recommend that. Seeing it again for the podcast, I really saw how much more I got out of it, knowing good hours work much better, especially the two films before it that we discussed. I think yeahs good eyes very interesting. I would specifically become a nil would do. But even though they get out of stuff, even though it's not my thing, is just interesting to see, both in terms of his personal evolution and also just how left intellectuals of the time where we acting to what was going on in the world. I would, of course, Ali recommend God ods s s output. I don't know if I recommended as a starting point, but that's just because it wasn't a starting point for me personally. Watching a whole bunch of his s films, I think hard up how many, was really interesting. Going back and looking at the seventies stuff, the stuff he did between his most acclaimed period, to the stuff like non Carmen and how marry in the s. So for me it was very interesting approaching it that way. I don't know if it's necessarily a bad point to start off with our numero do and to be on it might be a good starting point at depending that you know what you're in for, like if you've seen enough experimental films, especially, like I mentioned before, the films of Michael Snow, I think I'd be feeling really comfortable watching s got ARD. If you've never seen an anti narrative film before, it might not be the best place to start, but otherwise, yeah, I think both films were quite watchable and I think they would appeal quite well to film goers who have, I've already seen a few other experimental and anti narrative films in their time. Yeah, I think I agree with all of you in that this proble is shouldn't be your starting point. Like the most accessible work from good art is from the S, and if you can follow that evolution and end up loving Likena and weekend, there is a pretty clear path into the Seega work of stuff. Similarly, if you are one of the good ard fans who love his eight s and nineteen later work. If you for instant loved his most recent film, the image book, or you're one of the people who highlight his raw to cinema as one of his best work, you really need to go back and see his collaborations with me will, because this is where so much of that actually started, the play with not just poor but with the medium in a televisual way, this kind of credits you would later use, the type of with you arc you would later play with. All of that really start here. If you like his later work, you really owe it yourself to go back and see the murder here and elsewhere and his other collaborations with and Marie maybe, and with that. Thank you for listening and Journ US again soon. You have been listening to talking images, the official PODCAST OF ICM FORUMCOM.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (58)